YSRCP tells SC violence stopped candidates from filing nomination for local body polls

The Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) approached the Supreme Court on Monday, October 19, challenging an October 18 order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that refused to extend the deadline for filing nominations for the ongoing Urban Local Body (ULB) elections, which expired on the same day. The party alleges that violence and intimidation in Andhra Pradesh prevented several of its candidates from filing nominations.

In a special leave petition filed through its General Secretary Lella Appireddy, YSRCP is seeking an extension of the nomination period, police protection for its candidates, and the designation of additional or alternative nomination centres to enable them to file papers safely. It is also seeking a stay on the declaration of candidates as elected unopposed in the affected wards.

The petition alleges that several YSRCP candidates were assaulted, threatened, or physically prevented from reaching nomination centres during the nomination period, which ran from October 16 to 18. The party cites such incidents in Punganur, Rayachoti, Kadapa, and Tirupati.

The petition alleges that the nomination papers of a candidate in Kadapa were snatched and torn. It also states that nine candidates contesting the Tirupati Municipal Corporation elections were prevented from entering the offices of the concerned Returning Officers. The party further alleges that the convoy of YSRCP MP PV Midhun Reddy was attacked while he was accompanying candidates to file their nominations.

The YSRCP had earlier approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking additional nomination facilities at district headquarters, citing apprehensions of violence. On October 15, a single judge declined to grant the blanket relief sought by the party but gave individual candidates the liberty to approach the concerned Election Officers.

Following the alleged incidents on October 16, the party approached the State Election Commission seeking an extension of the nomination deadline. According to the petition, the Commission directed that adequate security be provided at nomination centres but did not extend the deadline.

The YSRCP subsequently approached the High Court again, seeking an extension by one day. However, in its October 18 order, the High Court dismissed the plea, holding that the nomination period had expired and that extending it would amount to interference in the election process.

Challenging this decision in the Supreme Court, the YSRCP argues that the restriction on judicial interference in elections is a rule of judicial restraint and not an absolute prohibition on courts intervening. It contends that constitutional courts can issue directions to facilitate the conduct of elections when candidates are allegedly prevented from contesting.

The party says that the expiry of the nomination deadline cannot, by itself, be a reason to deny relief when the alleged obstruction was what prevented candidates from submitting their papers in the first place.

The petition urges the Supreme Court to intervene to protect the electoral process and allow candidates who were allegedly obstructed from filing nominations to submit their papers during an extended period. It also seeks a stay on the declaration of candidates as elected unopposed in the affected wards pending further orders from the court.